PDA

View Full Version : No Miranda Rights for those the govt. deems naughty.



Ajamil
10th May 10, 03:20 PM
Attorney General Eric Holder is backing a proposition to add an exception to the Miranda Rights in the case of US citizen terrorists. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10holder.html)


The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/eric_h_holder_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per) flatly asserted that the defendant in the Times Square bombing attempt (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/times_square_bomb_attempt_may_1_2010/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) was trained by the Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in Pakistan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/pakistan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo). Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling. It generally forbids prosecutors from using as evidence statements made before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.

He said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.

The proposal to ask Congress to loosen the Miranda rule comes against the backdrop of criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects — including United States citizens like Faisal Shahzad (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/faisal_shahzad/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the suspect in the Times Square case — should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants.

For months, the administration has defended the criminal justice system as strong enough to handle terrorism cases. Mr. Holder acknowledged the abrupt shift of tone, characterizing the administration’s stance as a “new priority” and “big news” in an appearance on NBC (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/nbc_universal/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s “Meet the Press.”

“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”

The conclusion that Mr. Shahzad was involved in an international plot appeared to come from investigations that began after his arrest and interrogation, including inquiries into his links with the Taliban in Pakistan.

“We know that they helped facilitate it,” Mr. Holder said of the Times Square bombing attempt. “We know that they helped direct it. And I suspect that we are going to come up with evidence which shows that they helped to finance it. They were intimately involved in this plot.”

Mr. Holder’s statement, and comments by President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_o_brennan/index.html?inline=nyt-per), were the highest-level confirmation yet that the authorities believe the Pakistani branch of the Taliban was directly involved. Investigators were still pursuing leads based on what Mr. Shahzad has told them, and the officials did not describe their evidence in detail.

Mr. Brennan appeared to say even more definitively than Mr. Holder did that the Taliban in Pakistan had provided money as well as training and direction.
“He was trained by them,” Mr. Brennan said. “He received funding from them. He was basically directed here to the United States to carry out this attack.”

He added: “We have good cooperation from our Pakistani partners and from others. We’re learning more about this incident every day. We’re hopeful we’re going to be able to identify any other individuals that were involved.”

Even before the attempted Times Square attack, the administration had been stretching the traditional limits of how long suspects may be questioned without being warned of their rights.

After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Dec. 25, for example, the F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) questioned the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/umar_farouk_abdulmutallab/index.html?inline=nyt-per), for about 50 minutes without reading him his rights. And last week, Mr. Brennan said, the F.B.I. interrogated Mr. Shahzad for three or four hours before delivering a Miranda warning.

In both cases, the administration relied on an exception to Miranda for immediate threats to public safety. That exception was established by the Supreme Court in a 1984 case in which a police officer asked a suspect, at the time of his arrest and before reading him his rights, about where he had hidden a gun. The court deemed the defendant’s answer and the gun admissible as evidence against him.

Conservatives have long disliked the Miranda ruling, which is intended to ensure that confessions are not coerced. Its use in terrorism cases has been especially controversial because of concerns that informing a suspect of his rights could interrupt the flow of the interrogation and prompt him to stop disclosing information that might prevent a future attack.

Rudolph W. Giuliani (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/rudolph_w_giuliani/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the former New York City mayor and Republican presidential candidate, said Sunday on “This Week” on ABC that he supported Mr. Holder’s proposal. However, he also suggested that enacting it would not quell conservative criticism, arguing that it would be even better to hold suspects like Mr. Shahzad as military detainees for lengthier interrogation.

“I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning,” Mr. Giuliani said. “I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant, asked the president to do that, and at the same time, that would have given us the opportunity to question him for a much longer period of time.”

Any effort to further limit the Miranda rule will be likely to face challenges. In a 2000 case, the Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to strike down a statute that essentially overruled Miranda by allowing prosecutors to use statements defendants made voluntarily before being read their rights.

Despite the political furor over reading terrorism suspects their Miranda rights, it is not clear that doing so has had a major impact on recent interrogations. For example, even after Mr. Shahzad was read his rights, he waived them and continued talking. With Mr. Abdulmutallab, who is accused of trying to light a bomb hidden in his undergarments, the pre-Miranda interrogation lasted until he was taken into surgery for the burns he suffered. Afterward, he did not resume cooperating and was also read his Miranda rights, although the sequence of events is uncertain. Relatives later persuaded him to start talking again.

In Congressional testimony last week, Mr. Holder defended the legality of the delays in both cases, noting that the Supreme Court had set no time limit for use of the public-safety exception. But on Sunday, he seemed to indicate uneasiness about the executive branch unilaterally pushing those limits, and called for Congressional action to allow lengthier interrogations without Miranda warnings in international terrorism cases.

“If we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing in a public safety context with this new threat, I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception,” Mr. Holder said. “And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress to do: to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional but that is also relevant to our time and the threat that we now face.”

Philip B. Heymann, a Harvard (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/harvard_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) law professor and high-ranking Justice Department official in the Carter and Clinton administrations, said the Supreme Court was likely to uphold a broader emergency exception for terrorism cases — especially if Congress approved it. “Not having addressed how long the emergency exception can be, the Supreme Court would be very hesitant to disagree with both the president and Congress if there was any reasonable resolution to that question,” he said.

Still, Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/american_civil_liberties_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said Congress had no authority to “chip away” at the Miranda ruling because it was based in the Constitution. He predicted that any effort to carve a broader exception would be vigorously contested.

“The irony is that this administration supposedly stands for the rule of law and the restoration of America’s legal standing,” he said. And Virginia E. Sloan, president of the bipartisan Constitution Project, said the existing public safety exception to Miranda seemed to be working, so there was no need to erode constitutional protections in ways that could later be expanded to other kinds of criminal suspects.

“It makes good political theater,” she said, “but we need to have a clear problem that we are addressing and a clear justification for any change. I haven’t seen that yet.”

So we've had numerous failed attempts at terrorist attacks - and this is evidence that we need less rights for US citizens because our current way isn't working? Also, what does the international character of these threats have to do with anything? Miranda Rights only apply to Us citizens, yes? Why do we need to remove our rights so we can interrogate foreign agents?


For the first time I'm truly stunned and pissed at the Obama administration. I didn't entirely like a lot of things he's done, but this seems to be Patriot Act #2. If this passes, who's with me to go to ports of entry and parade around with signs saying "You have the right to remain silent. DO NOT talk to the police." Kind of like a constitutional "Stop Snitching" campaign.

Is "amid Republican uproar" central to this? Will they really screw with our ability to know what rights we have just to appease the other side? How can "conservatives" be for this and against things like govt. regulation of businesses?

EuropIan
10th May 10, 03:22 PM
george bush the third

Commodore Pipes
10th May 10, 03:34 PM
Just to be clear* - they still have their rights, they just aren't informed about them?



*I really am trying to be precise, not sardonic, so don't read anything into this... yet.

EvilSteve
10th May 10, 03:52 PM
No- they don't have their rights. If they had their rights, any evidence given in advance of the miranda warning would be inadmissible.

This is pretty revolting since it's a clear violation of due process of law and as such a violation of the 5th amendment. Additionally, the 5th doesn't say anything about only applying to U.S. citizens, it just by nature only applies to U.S. jurisdiction.

EuropIan
10th May 10, 03:57 PM
I'm pretty sure you can be arrested without having your rights read to you.

Adouglasmhor
10th May 10, 03:58 PM
I'm pretty sure you can be arrested without having your rights read to you.
Yes but they can't use anything you say in evidence against you.

EuropIan
10th May 10, 04:01 PM
True, but that wasn't what I was thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Public_safety_exception)

jubei33
10th May 10, 04:17 PM
great. Some Upbeat prosecutors already tried someone for domestic terrorism for making methamphetamine.

go get bent Holder

Ajamil
10th May 10, 04:27 PM
Link? How long till illegal immigration is considered a terrorist act? Or speeding cuz car bombs?

Cullion
10th May 10, 04:35 PM
So, wait.

Is Obama not a liberal now?

Or is he a liberal trying to look tough?

Or would he like to be a liberal, but he knows something about highschool computer hackers and redneck meth producers that we don't?

HappyOldGuy
10th May 10, 04:43 PM
highschool computer hackers

We got sumthin for McKinnon. Yes indeed we do.

As for the OP.

http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/05/74/71/400_F_5747169_rukhwUh1Swl9PnAAJyy1VgRtyPickNrS.jpg

Slippery slope is slippery.

mrblackmagic
10th May 10, 05:07 PM
I don't think Obama's people trying make the evil empire with this law, as much as they trying to clean up a faux-pas. Clearly, they aren't look at the long-term impact of the bill.


The government can legally make an exception to a basic right. A good enough lawyer make whatever he wants of searches and seizures.

GuiltySpark
10th May 10, 05:35 PM
Should people who turn their back on the country and it's laws be afforded the same rights as law abiding citizens?

Commodore Pipes
10th May 10, 05:39 PM
Should people who turn their back on the country and it's laws be afforded the same rights as law abiding citizens?

When these rights pertain to the investigation that determines whether or not they in fact did turn their back on their country, I imagine the answer is yes.

But I am being dumber than shit here - so they can use his pre-Miranda babblings in court? Not trying to be a douche, but seriously, don't these folks watch TV? Who doesn't know that they can just shut their mouths?

mrblackmagic
10th May 10, 05:48 PM
Should people who turn their back on the country and it's laws be afforded the same rights as law abiding citizens?

They can enjoy a gitmo cock-meat sandwich for all I care, but the law applies to anyone the government deems a "terrorist." That's very open-ended statement.

Adouglasmhor
10th May 10, 06:00 PM
Animal rights protesters, anti war protesters both current and Vietnam, members of the Animals Fae NamboomBoom scooter club. Have all been called terrorists by US govt officials.

GuiltySpark
10th May 10, 06:05 PM
Yea I hear ya. Getting close to defcon one down there. LOOK a terrorist!
ZOMG WHERE!

Intead of giving everyone the salem witch trial style treatment the government agencies should just work together and sort people out.

My question wasn't poised with rgard to this case but in general

Like that Khadar kid. He Canadian and was wounded in Pakistan (?) while in a fight that killed a US medic.
HEs Canadian so falls under our laws (and the protections they provide) I wonder if we should actually do that or not.

Cullion
10th May 10, 06:10 PM
We got sumthin for McKinnon. Yes indeed we do.


He was just a dork looking for UFO pics. Does he have to go to real butt-pounding, rock-breaking jail for that ?

jkdbuck76
10th May 10, 08:11 PM
Attorney General Eric Holder is backing a proposition to add an exception to the Miranda Rights in the case of US citizen terrorists. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10holder.html)


For the first time I'm truly stunned and pissed at the Obama administration. I didn't entirely like a lot of things he's done, but this seems to be Patriot Act #2.


You do realize that Mr. Obama has extended the Patriot Act for 1 year?

Zendetta
10th May 10, 08:43 PM
For the first time I'm truly stunned and pissed at the Obama administration.

It won't be the last. :pity:


How long till __________ is considered a terrorist act?

That's a very good question. Our cousins across the pond say that all kinds of folks get pinched for being involved in "terrorist activities" over there.


Clearly, they aren't look at the long-term impact of the bill.

Or are They?!??!/dramaticmusic


Who doesn't know that they can just shut their mouths?

The guy who's got a car battery hooked to his genitalia?



I don't like this Holder cat so much. SRSLY, folks: what is it going to take to get sensible people from left and right to work together against shit like this?

nihilist
10th May 10, 08:56 PM
It CAN happen here.

HappyOldGuy
10th May 10, 08:59 PM
Should people who turn their back on the country and it's laws be afforded the same rights as law abiding citizens?

Otherwise they aren't rights, they are gifts from our benevolent rulers.

nihilist
10th May 10, 10:40 PM
Should people who turn their back on the country and it's laws be afforded the same rights as law abiding citizens?

No. I think Bush2 and Cheney should be denied council and detained indefinitely in a prison on foreign soil.

Cullion
11th May 10, 05:04 AM
That's a very good question. Our cousins across the pond say that all kinds of folks get pinched for being involved in "terrorist activities" over there.

Don't think that being a paid up member of a political party gives you the right to argue with the party bigwigs at the conference you paid to attend:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Wolfgang

Don't take pictures of the police:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminalised-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html

And don't fuck around with a walkie-talkie and a silly fancy dress costume:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/26/kids-tv-presenters-terror-laws

TheMightyMcClaw
11th May 10, 10:14 AM
So, wait.

Is Obama not a liberal now?

Or is he a liberal trying to look tough?

Or would he like to be a liberal, but he knows something about highschool computer hackers and redneck meth producers that we don't?

Obama's kind of a hawk. He always has been.

Commodore Pipes
11th May 10, 10:30 AM
The guy who's got a car battery hooked to his genitalia?


Well, that's why I'm trying to define the parameters of the fed's free hand. Just not being told that you don't have to talk is not equivalent to THIS ^^

SFGOON
11th May 10, 10:43 AM
Miranda warnings are likely to go away entirely sometime in the near future.

You - all of you - even the fucking foreigners, know your rights if you're arrested in the USA.

So what's the point of telling someone? You not losing the rights, it just means the police don't have to inform you of what they are. 'Cuz you already know.

HappyOldGuy
11th May 10, 10:44 AM
And once all the law and order reruns are off the air?

Cullion
11th May 10, 10:46 AM
Ask a random brit if we have a 'bill of rights'. Of those who answer in the affirmative, I bet more than half then mention the European Human Rights act.

mrblackmagic
11th May 10, 02:07 PM
Or are They?!??!/dramaticmusic

You couldn't make that level government if you could think past 5 years.


And once all the law and order reruns are off the air?

That's what worries me. When has anybody EVER used their Miranda Rights on Law and Order?

jubei33
11th May 10, 03:27 PM
It was even claimed that if Wolfgang had shouted "nonsense" twice, he could have been charged according to the Protection from Harassment Act which was ostensibly primarily created to deter stalkers.[2]

and that's how its done, with a file and tweezers.